Board Mommy

He should. And he should pick young ones who are going to be there for a long long time.

Democrats are a hivemind and aren't really good at considering consequences. If anyone dares question them, they send the Twitter mob to attack and force an apology.

This is why it's important that Democrats never EVER have control of Congress or the White House again. I used to like the balance and thought a Democrat House - representing the People - was probably a good idea. Now they're all a bunch of blithering idiot Socialists and America-haters, and I don't want them near my government.

Well-Known Member

If Trump tried to appoint 6 more to the Supreme Court, you would see the left calling him crazy and claiming to wonder where he got such a foolish idea.
Nine is aplenty and they cost enough with offices, and staff, Six more would just increase the cost

Well-Known Member

I've been reading the more liberal press on this.
The premise is - hey, what if we get the Senate, the White House, do away with all those filibuster rules, pass some stuff and -
man - the Supreme Court says, sorry, that's unconstitutional, you can't do this or that.

So wouldn't it be great if we just did away with that annoying little detail? Just load it up with more justices who believe as
we do, so we can run stuff the way we want?

And they're all pretty much that way. You know, the whole thing of separation of powers, checks and balances, even the
horrible thought that a substantial portion of the country doesn't agree with them - nope. We get the power, we need to
find ways to keep it.

Board Mommy

Them being "on record" means nothing. When they reverse they'll just say that they were for it before they were against it, or the MSM will never bring it up and it will be forgotten. Whatever they say today, right now, right this minute, is what the progs will parrot. If they do a 180 two minutes later, the progs will parrot that talking point.

Socialism - real socialism - is shared misery.
Where stuff like universal basic income has been tried - people tend to work LESS. Why bother to work at all IF you can get enough to get by and do absolutely nothing? The kind of ideas socialism brings to the table is, it highly disincentivizes people to work hard and make lots of money - because it will be taken from them. It encourages people without a lot of ambition to just take stuff for free.

I know - I've known way too many people like that. They may be poor, but they adjust so they don't have to work. Had a couple roommates like that - human sponges. They'd work as few hours as possible as long as they had what they wanted.

You don't get stellar, prompt healthcare. You get free healthcare and you get what you pay for.

For a thriving society, you NEED ambitious people who want to change the world and make a name for themselves. Socialism takes all the colors and makes them all gray.

Koch was anointing "Peace Child Week" in honor of a troupe of Soviet youngsters and 12 American youths crossing the U.S. in a "peace" play. The Soviet "government is the pits," the mayor told the young thespians when the proclaiming was done.

The angry youths took swift reprisals—scrubbing the rest of their City Hall tour. "I don't want to stay in this house no more minute," announced Yegor Druzhinin, 14. "I want to go to bus and to go far, far away. The mayor is very rude." Before the Soviet saplings came to the U.S., they were taught about Communism and capitalism. But no one taught them about Kochism. Oksana Remizova, 18, protested that the mayor showed disrespect by appearing "in a dirty shirt and wrinkled tie." No one had briefed her that this is Koch's standard garb for greeting visitors, whether plutocrat, peasant or proletarian. Fending off the sartorial slur, Hizzoner said later: "What kind of a Communist society do they have there? Everyone runs around in tuxedos?"

Just hours after the Soviet youngsters left in a huff, he told visiting East Germans that East Berlin is "very drab, very gray."